Decision Markets with Good Incentives
Decision markets both predict and decide the future. They allow experts to predict the effects of each of a set of possible actions, and after reviewing these predictions a decision maker selects an action to perform. When the future is independent of the market, strictly proper scoring rules myopically incentivize experts to predict consistent with their beliefs, but this is not generally true when a decision is to be made. When deciding, only predictions for the chosen action can be evaluated for their accuracy since the other predictions become counterfactuals. This limitation can make some actions more valuable than others for an expert, incentivizing the expert to mislead the decision maker. We construct and characterize decision markets that are – like prediction markets using strictly proper scoring rules – myopic incentive compatible. These markets require the decision maker always risk taking every available action, and reducing this risk increases the decision maker’s worst-case loss. We also show a correspondence between strictly proper decision markets and strictly proper sets of prediction markets, creating a formal connection between the incentives of prediction and decision markets.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Berg, J.E., Forsythe, R., Nelson, F.D., Rietz, T.A.: Results from a dozen years of election futures markets research. In: Plott, C.A., Smith, V. (eds.) Handbook of Experimental Economic Results (2001)Google Scholar
- 3.Chen, K.-Y., Plott, C.R.: Information aggregation mechanisms: Concept, design and implementation for a sales forecasting problem. Working paper No. 1131, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences (2002)Google Scholar
- 5.Chen, Y., Gao, X.A., Goldstein, R., Kash, I.A.: Market manipulation with outside incentives. In: AAAI 2011: Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2011)Google Scholar
- 6.Chen, Y., Kash, I.A.: Information elicitation for decision making. In: AAMAS 2011: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2011)Google Scholar
- 7.Chen, Y., Pennock, D.M.: A utility framework for bounded-loss market makers. In: UAI 2007: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 49–56 (2007)Google Scholar
- 8.Debnath, S., Pennock, D.M., Giles, C.L., Lawrence, S.: Information incorporation in online in-game sports betting markets. In: EC 2003: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 258–259. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
- 9.Dimitrov, S., Sami, R.: Composition of markets with conflicting incentives. In: EC 2010: Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 53–62. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
- 13.Hanson, R.D.: Logarithmic market scoring rules for modular combinatorial information aggregation. Journal of Prediction Markets 1(1), 1–15 (2007)Google Scholar
- 15.Ostrovsky, M.: Information aggregation in dynamic markets with strategic traders. In: EC 2009: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, p. 253. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
- 16.Othman, A., Sandholm, T.: Decision rules and decision markets. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 625–632 (2010)Google Scholar